n a 5x5 al and nl roto league with keepers who can be kept an unlimited number of years at a $2 bump, a guy just dealt miguel montero at $10 and danny espinosa at$7 for matt kemp at $13, would any league allow a trade like that to pass?

I certainly would not. I know people try to say that people should sit back when there isn't collusion, but I don't like that philosophy.

For me, I also make exceptions for deals that are grossly lopsided. My reasoning is competition. When a team makes stupid moves like this, that owner's going to realize the mistake quickly, be pissed his team sucks, quit, and leave the headache to a new owner. I hate when stuff like that happens (it's going on right now in the league I'm in, to an extent), so anything that keeps stupidity from ruining the competition is also a good thing to keep in mind.

I'm staunchly against vetoing trades except in cases of collusion. That being said, a trade this lopsided kind of has to be collusion. What I mean by that is that it's so terrible that there kind of has to be some non-baseball stuff going on behind the scenes. Maybe the owner giving up Kemp is planning on leaving the league and just doesn't care or something. But even allowing for a wide variance of opinions on players, there's just no rational way to justify a trade like this.

Just to be clear, I really hate giving managers the power to veto trades. If I want to trade Tex for Mike Trout, the fact that someone else thinks it's stupid shouldn't matter. But this isn't a long-shot, this-might-sound-crazy-but-it-just-might-work kind of thing. This is Tex for JJ Hardy.

lane_anasazi2 wrote:I really hate giving managers the power to veto trades. If I want to trade Tex for Mike Trout, the fact that someone else thinks it's stupid shouldn't matter. But this isn't a long-shot, this-might-sound-crazy-but-it-just-might-work kind of thing. This is Tex for JJ Hardy.

I am in this boat. I actually in a league last year and the first deal I made, I had to publicly back up why I wanted to do the trade. I subsequently left the league because I didn't want to be in a league where you are second guessed for the deals you make. I have made dumb trades a plenty but I have also made deals that most think are really bad but actually were in my favor big time.

So while I hate this trade and I hate having to ask owners to justify what they are doing, this might be one of the few times. The only time I think a veto is ok, is when the overall league is at risk. For instance, a guy trades all his stars for scrubs because he is planning to ditch the league or something crazy. And while I could make a case of why someone would do this deal, you should probably make sure everything is on the up and up. I would try and do this through email and not make the owner feel like you are attacking him.

Do you know this owner? Has he been in the league long? All of these things should also be considered.

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."- Douglas Adams

lane_anasazi2 wrote:I'm staunchly against vetoing trades except in cases of collusion. That being said, a trade this lopsided kind of has to be collusion. What I mean by that is that it's so terrible that there kind of has to be some non-baseball stuff going on behind the scenes. Maybe the owner giving up Kemp is planning on leaving the league and just doesn't care or something. But even allowing for a wide variance of opinions on players, there's just no rational way to justify a trade like this.

Just to be clear, I really hate giving managers the power to veto trades. If I want to trade Tex for Mike Trout, the fact that someone else thinks it's stupid shouldn't matter. But this isn't a long-shot, this-might-sound-crazy-but-it-just-might-work kind of thing. This is Tex for JJ Hardy.

I'm in this line. I don't like vetoing but you have to draw the line somewhere. Trades like this can destroy the competitive balance of the league.

Yeah, this trade is beyond nuts. I would not only veto it, but ask the manager who is trading away Kemp why the **** he is doing this. Maybe put him on probation or something. There is no reason anyone would ever make this trade other than planning on leaving and ruining the balance of the league.

Well it seems i am the only one in the league to raise the issue of this trade as being questionable, and nothing was done, not even a whisper from anyone else saying this trade was lopsided.... looks like its going to be a long season in this league

lane_anasazi2 wrote:I'm staunchly against vetoing trades except in cases of collusion. That being said, a trade this lopsided kind of has to be collusion. What I mean by that is that it's so terrible that there kind of has to be some non-baseball stuff going on behind the scenes. Maybe the owner giving up Kemp is planning on leaving the league and just doesn't care or something. But even allowing for a wide variance of opinions on players, there's just no rational way to justify a trade like this.

Just to be clear, I really hate giving managers the power to veto trades. If I want to trade Tex for Mike Trout, the fact that someone else thinks it's stupid shouldn't matter. But this isn't a long-shot, this-might-sound-crazy-but-it-just-might-work kind of thing. This is Tex for JJ Hardy.

I'm in this line. I don't like vetoing but you have to draw the line somewhere. Trades like this can destroy the competitive balance of the league.

lane_anasazi2 wrote:I'm staunchly against vetoing trades except in cases of collusion. That being said, a trade this lopsided kind of has to be collusion. What I mean by that is that it's so terrible that there kind of has to be some non-baseball stuff going on behind the scenes. Maybe the owner giving up Kemp is planning on leaving the league and just doesn't care or something. But even allowing for a wide variance of opinions on players, there's just no rational way to justify a trade like this.

Just to be clear, I really hate giving managers the power to veto trades. If I want to trade Tex for Mike Trout, the fact that someone else thinks it's stupid shouldn't matter. But this isn't a long-shot, this-might-sound-crazy-but-it-just-might-work kind of thing. This is Tex for JJ Hardy.

I'm in this line. I don't like vetoing but you have to draw the line somewhere. Trades like this can destroy the competitive balance of the league.